2009/9/24 Jeff Flinn <TriumphSprint2000@hotmail.com>:
Jeff Flinn wrote:
Hi Joachim,
Joachim Faulhaber wrote:
Dear developers,
the Interval Template Library is now in a state where I think it does conform the requirements and guidelines for boost libraries fairly well.
I'm working with CodeWarrior version 9.x (yep I'm stuck with this):
That's version 9.4.
Also Ambiguous use of partial specialization Errors in is_combinable.hpp for the typedef's in:
template<class Type> struct is_interval_set_derivative<Type, typename Type::interval_type> { typedef is_interval_set_derivative<Type, typename Type::interval_type> type; BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(bool, value = (is_interval_container<Type>::value)); };
So isn't this comparable:
template<class Type> struct is_interval_set_derivative<Type, typename Type::interval_type> { typedef is_interval_set_derivative type; BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(bool, value = (is_interval_container<Type>::value)); };
Isn't the unadorned name is_interval_set_derivative within the context of this struct definition the same as if it had the template parameters specified?
Modifying is_combinable in this fashion compiles in cw9.4. I haven't checked yet with MSVC or gcc.
Hi Jeff, thank you for checking this. It looks like gcc and msvc are happy with your code change. I am going to run a few more tests tomorrow before committing the code to the sandbox (it's 1am in Berlin ;) Good night Joachim